Washington standard. [volume] (Olympia, Wash. Territory) 1860-1921, 1887-02-18

( 10 cover All llc provisions Ol me act
or definite enough 10 give notice ui
the contents.
NJ ease has arisen in the courts nor
been commented upon by authors,
where the violation of the provision
has been 50 gross as i'll this case, cX-
ccpt ii may bc case in the State of
New York, and perhaps in another
State.
The title of this act does not attempt
to give notice OF what the act itself
contains, or what is the object of it, or
what is lis subject matter.
1t attempts to make Il reference /"
ccr'ain sections uf Il certain book
where the object may he discovered.
BY reading the title nothing is
known, but by reading the title and
then reading the book mrmhrr may
find out the object. If thi, We're Ill
shat was intended, then Il title like this
would be better: An act to provide
for certain things. which will he found
in the body thereof" This reference
would be better, hccausr easier made,
for here the reference would hr to an
W
hv the other it would he much more
difficult to find Il matter referred to-
1t is more important that cnnS;itu-
tiunal provisions should be observed.
than any Temporary Inconvenience
may hr suffered. which may hv rene
died 10y the next Legislature. The
act is then void because il has no Ii
| 81 l. {
lSSi is invalid for thr same reason,
and hence women are not electors nor
qualified grand jurors.
.tn Wo,rj"d n',a Hrjog ~uh N,ir
hHsbdHdS hons. hoidrsI \ woman
who keeps house and controls it, as Il
widow, or the like, may he Il house
holder. The term has been defined
in exemption laws and jury laws frc-
qucntly, as only including the hrlS-
band and not the wife when they live
together rs husband and wife. No
doubt but that this meaning obtained
for the reason that the husband WAS
deemed to have control of the house,
his wife and his family. 1t has ever
been used i'll the statutes of this Terri
tory and many others, as distinguish
ing the husband only. There has
been no act passed purporting by lis
title to amend the old section which
had the uniform construction that the
husband alone is included. If this
section has been modified it has not
been done by any act which by It's title
or otherwise referred to the subject
matter OF the qualification OF jurors
Had the Legislature intended to
change the qualification Of Jurors it
would seem that they would have sig
niticd that intent by amending the act
relating 10 the subject. This they
have not done Ii ii has been changed
it has been done without any cxprrS-
sion of Il legislative intent to change
it. 1t has been done incidentally with
out any reference to the quality Of
grand jurors.
The incidental acts which have been
thought Icy some To- change the old
law, that the man is the only head of
the family, and make two heads in
stead OF one, are the married women
acts so-called.
These acts have existed in nearly
their present form since 1869, and no
ON" imagined that the personal rrll
tiuns OF husband and wife were
changed. 1t was thought the mar
ricd women" acts only related to
rights of the women to hold and CON
troll property and the like. and nothing
more.
The act which is claimed to change
the qualification of jurors, passed No
vcmbcr, II. 1879, was cntitlcd-"An
act to establish and protect the rights
of married women" This act has
been passed in many other States, and
last in the State of Oregon, yet in none
has it been construed to make the
married woman the head of the house
hold, or qualify her to sit on jurics.
Even here, where certain property
is exempted to each householder, it
has not been claimed that the huS-
band, as one householder, and the
wife rs another, can each and both
claim thc exemption, and thus double
the exemption.
Civil disabilities are abolished as to
the wife, but il the right to vote is Il
civil right, it was not abolished by this
act. The words civil disabilities" are
eXplaincd by the context.
For any usurpation of her natural
or property rights she may appeal to
'hc courts" &c, &c. Ii was simply
intended to give her Il status in court,
to protect her civil rights, i. e., her na-
tural or property rights.
Section makes special provision as
To control and custody Of children,
showing that it was not thought that
the words "civil disabilities" being re-
moved, and she being permitted to
Sue for her natural and property
rights included the right TO control
children.
II, notwithstanding the civil disahil-
ity clause and the natural and property
hight CLAUSE, ii was necessary to add
another section concerning children it
clearly shows that the Legislature
thought they intended to give woman
the equal right t" iiold property, con
troll children. and :hr right To- sue.
which her husband had, and nothing
more.
No more ;han this i expressed in
the language; not Il word about her
being lord Of the household, or Juror,
or the like
II the Legislature waS - particular
To- name natural and property rights
and right To- control children, it is io
he presumed that thrs" subjects only
were intended to he lcyi>latcd upon.
l. every man who is disqualified
from being a grand juror, lahoring un-
der civil disability? Ii this Is 50, at
tornrys, n">tma>tcrs, physicians, old
men. even the judges, are now suffer
ing from civil disability Read, "a
wife shall not he deprived OF civil
rights" and You have an equivalent
'cxprcs>ion to this statute. Jury duty,